Emerson Paul v. Sandra Pennywell

MEMORANDUM

Emerson Paul appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. The state court’s determination that Paul’s appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the admission of the black shirt on direct appeal is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100-01 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

The Supreme Court has made clear that “appellate counsel who files a merits brief need not (and should not) raise every non-frivolous claim, but rather may select from among them in order to maximize the likelihood of success on appeal.” Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 , 120 S.Ct. 746 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000). The Supreme Court has explained that “[experienced advocates since time beyond memory have emphasized the importance of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on one central issue if possible, or at most on a few key issues.” Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-52 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). Considering the potential…